Let us ponder for a moment the hypocrisy of the Department of Justice, and inherently the Obama Administration, in their pursuit of the Arizona immigration law. Attorney General Eric Holder, along with multiple officials in the Administration and left-wing pundits in the media, claimed that the law would specifically lead to racial profiling and racial harassment in general. However, when the DOJ finally filed suit against AZ SB 1070, they did it on the Supremacy Clause and didn’t mention profiling at all.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that “a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that “otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court’s remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme.” Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).

What makes this important is that AZ SB 1070 does not conflict with the Federal government. In fact, it states that State and Local authorities must comply with federal law. The law doesn’t create State immigration statutes; it simply authorizes the State and Local law enforcement to enforce federal statutes. So it is really beyond comprehension why the Administration, through the DOJ, would target this law, UNLESS, there was a specific interest on the part of the Administration to not enforce immigration statutes.

So why is this hypocritical? Sanctuary.

Oregon legislation:

181.850 Enforcement of federal immigration laws. (1) No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

Why not go after Oregon with the argument of federal supremacy? Why not assert federal authority by demanding that State and Local law enforcement enforce federal law?

And how about medical marijuana?

If the Administration, vis a vis the DOJ, is really concerned with the Supremacy of federal law, then why not enforce all federal law? It isn’t like they’ll have to blaze a trail through the courts establishing their superiority, that has already been done in US v. Oakland Canabisbuyer’s Cooperative in which the Supreme Court found that the medical premise for marijuana doesn’t hold and that the supremacy of Controlled Substances Act is well and good.

Do we selectively pick what statutes we will enforce? Is it a slippery slope to selectively pick what statutes to enforce? Might be, considering that the DOJ is apparently not interested in voter intimidation, well, at least against voter intimidation perpetrated by blacks.

Here’s the bottom line- the Executive Branch is there to enforce the law, all of them. Justice is suppose to be blind, it is suppose to be there for folks regardless of their skin color, their socio-economic class, their education, their sex, their physical handicaps, their mental handicaps- justice is there for everyone. The selective enforcement of the law, based on political ideology, is an insult to the law and to the overall premise of democracy in general.

So, I just listened to Dr. Hill on the O’Reilly Factor defend the NAACP. Bill asked him to provide one data point in which the NAACP had addressed racism within the black community- Hill couldn’t. Or rather, he wouldn’t. In fact, he went on to say that the NAACP shouldn’t. And after he did, I can understand why.

First is the fact that labels mean something: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Dr. Hill said that the NAACP shouldn’t address racism within the black community because it was an advocacy organization for black people. Hmmmm, seems rather counter-intuitive from what the claim their mission is:

“The mission of the [NAACP] is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.”

Are they advocating for black people or protesting racism? At one time, these separate issues were in parallel, and thanks to the efforts of the NAACP, blacks have greatly moved forward in regards to equal rights. But what the NAACP has done vis a vis its latest statement on the Tea Party movement is demonstrate for all the they are, first and foremost, a black advocacy organization. Racism only applies if it works in the interest of black advocacy, so Dr. Hill has done quite a bit in that one segment to clarify not only who the NAACP is, but what they stand for.

The NAACP referenced Tea Party signs (Lynch Obama and Lynch Holder) that have never been documented- there is no factual evidence that these signs exist. Just like the NAACP- and others- have claimed that the Tea Party called members of the Congressional Black Caucus the niggers. There is no evidence of it ever happening. In fact, what is dishonest about that entire claim is that the Black Caucus was actually trolling for racist comments.

Andrew Breitbart has offered $100,000 to anyone who can prove it too. Maybe Rutherford can supplement his income with the “truth”. Doubtful…

We, as Conservatives, call the NAACP the NAALCP- National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People. There is a lot of evidence of this, from their (NAALCP) refusal to address the rampant racism of the New Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, or themselves:

Rutherford has taken it upon himself to congratulate the NAACP for condemning the Tea Party movement as racist, yet after constant prodding by conservatives on his site, refuses to address the racism in black organizations.

I again reflected on something I said in an earlier post about how issues of class are all too often confused with issues of race. I think Dr. Hill’s comments, in conjunction with Rutherford’s comments, makes me want to revive this statement: issues of class are all too often confused disguised with issues of race. The NAACP is demonstrating more and more that they are interested liberal political ideology than they are in equal opportunity and the elimination of race-based discrimination. They’re all over Obama cartoons, but where were they when Condoleezza Rice was called Brown Sugar in Doonesbury or depicted as a black mammy by Danziger?

Racism is wrong and everyone should be focused on the elimination of race-based discrimination. But it is highly hypocritical to tell whites to criticize and reject whites who are being racist and yet not expect blacks to do the exact same thing. Rutherford and Dr. Hill both commented on the premise that racism only applies to institutional power (which is bullshit). Well, the Black President of the United States and the Black Attorney General have decided to not address an issue of black voter intimidation and we have a whistle blower who is stating that this is a policy of the administration. The only thing that differentiates this from the 50’s is the date.

The NAACP and blacks in general have to get off of the premise of victimhood and start taking responsibility in holding their own accountable, for those that live in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones.

In the post-racial culture America strives to be, it is eye-popping for a Supreme Court justice to advance an unabashed race-based argument as the basis for arming citizens, and black citizens in particular. Thomas quotes Frederick Douglass, the black abolitionist and friend of President Abraham Lincoln, who said, “The black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms,” and until he does, “the work of the Abolitionists was not finished.”

Those words were relevant in Lincoln’s day, but they are out of date and out of touch with the America of today. The flaw in Thomas’ judicial philosophy is its view that nothing ever changes, that he can interpret the Constitution the same way it was interpreted when blacks were enslaved, or in the days of Jim Crow, when they were denied basic rights, or when Thomas, now 62, was making his way in the world and bracing against every act of racism and every real or imagined slight directed at him.

I’ve an issue with this statement. First is the premise that Constitutionally protected rights have relevancy to time periods. Last I checked, there was no expiration date on the Constitution. Second is the notion of picking an choosing which Constitutional rights are in vogue.

The second thing she said that irritated me was:

The more immediate problem for the black community, however, is black-on-black crime, made more deadly by the easy access to guns in a political environment where gun control seems to have no future.

Wow, the intellectual dishonesty of this statement is without bounds. First off, the places where black on black violence is the highest- Washington D.C., Baltimore, New York City, Chicago- are the cities that have the most restrictive gun control laws. Second is the premise that gun control helps to fight crime, which is demonstrably false. For instance:

Concealed carry and crime reductionWhen criminals suspect that the costs of committing a crime will be too high, they are less likely to commit it. The possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds in favor of the potential victim. Studies have shown that rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who do not resist.

In More Guns, Less Crime (1998), the University of Chicago’s John Lott examined the impact of concealed carry permits. Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, he found that after controlling for other factors:
• Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

• Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.

These reductions are beyond the general decline in crime rates that the U.S. has experienced during the past eight years.

In the early 1990s, Texas’ serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. For example, during the 1990s Texas’ murder rate dropped 52 percent compared to 33 percent nationally, and the rape rate fell by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. In light of Lott’s research, it is likely that Texas’ concealed carry law has contributed to the declining crime rates.

This is just one of several studies now that show a direct relationship between ‘must issue’ concealed carry legislation and levels of violent crime.

Now, if Ms. Clift wants to focus on Thomas’s use of black history to defend his opinion, I consider that fair game, though I think that her approach thus far in the article is severely flawed.

It is more than a bumper sticker now, it has been born out in multiple studies: guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

So last night I was at a friend’s house and we wandered onto the topic of race. Typically, we avoid this topic, not so much because we’re afraid of it, but because it holds no interest to us- it is not something typically in our consciousness. We came upon the topic while discussing the latest bits of our professions. “D” is a juvenile counselor for the county and focuses on finding various types of counseling programs for disturbed youth in the criminal justice system.

“D” was commenting on the anecdotal observation that the counseling program was not very successful because, ultimately, the youth have to go back to the home. While this was a general observation, I asked the question of whether or not he saw any differences based on demographics, to which he made a couple observations.

First, he observed that entry into the programs- meaning court order entry- rested on lawyer support. Wealthier families tended to have lawyers who worked towards those programs. I asked about the public defenders and why they wouldn’t make the same play, to which he made the second observation. He commented that the public defenders could do it just as easily as anyone else, but stated that the public defender works for the client. He observed that wealthier families were by far more focused on the future- how is this going to affect the child in the long term and how can they repair the situation. In lower income families, it was far more geared towards what they could do in the now- how is this going to affect the child now. A part of this observation was that in the lower income communities, there was a sense of disapproval to those who had managed to ‘get out’ of those communities.

As I was driving home, I started thinking about that first point: issues of class are all too often confused with issues of race. Then, I started pondering the discussions I’ve had with my liberal fried Rutherford on race, and some of the comments he has made in the past.

I’m willing to accept that the last bit was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but not entirely. But more importantly is the qualifier that he applies- a possibility. That then brought me back to a comment that he had made in May of this year:

I think it is clearer when talking about isolated exchanges between individuals, that we refer to prejudice or bigotry. When we talk about organized efforts and group-think, racism comes into play.

What I wonder about is why the distinction between the two seems to matter as much to you as it does to me. Are you jealous that blacks always get to play the victim and whites don’t?— Rutherford

There are several elements of this comment that I find troubling, but none so much as the bolded text. [B]lacks always get to play the victim and whites don’t. Now, I’m sure Rutherford would say in his defense that I’m taking this comment out of context, but I think it points to a larger question: is there a systemic conditioning of victimhood within the black community?

How many times have we seen the political rhetoric, the criminal defenses in the courts, the popular commentary cry racism repeatedly in the face of adversity or criticism. I know that time and time again I’ve heard racism blamed for the woes of the world. Look at this administration, how many times have we seen the administration and its defenders blame any criticism on racism?

vic•tim
1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency.
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.
3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.
4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.

So, why bring it up when this post will likely bring me nothing but hate and discontent? Because I read stuff like this:

Graychin: “[Gorilla:] the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race.”Overwhelmingly, black voters disagree.
Are you saying that blacks are too ignorant to know what is good for them?”

Now, he made this comment in response to a previous comment that I had made quoting a BLACK MAN commenting on the Dem party:

The Racist History of the Democratic PartyMost people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.

The article that this is quoted from makes great efforts to document the opposition of the Dem party to the black community and essentially comes to this conclusion:

Wayne Perryman: After reviewing all of the evidence, many believe America would have never experienced racism to the degree that it has, had not the Democrats promoted it through:
Racist Legislation
Terrorist Organizations
Negative Media Communications
Bias Education
Relentless Intimidation
And Flawed Adjudication

The racism established and promoted by members of the Democratic Party affected and infected the entire nation from 1856 with the Dred Scott decision, to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. But they never offered or issued an apology.

I’m saying that a political culture exists on the left that has inculcated a false reality about racism and the political parties of this nation. A party that panders to the lowest common denominator is no friend to any demographic group, especially one that does have a real history of oppression AT THE HANDS OF THE VERY GROUP PANDERING TO THEM!

Some serious discussions need to happen about race in this nation, and contrary to Holder’s twisted view of life, it is the political left that are the cowards refusing to talk about it. The black community really needs to sit back and look at all those elections where they’ve elected dems, especially the places where Dems have been in charge for many years (i.e. New Orleans, Detroit, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc, etc, etc) and look at how their communities have faired under the Dems.

The history is long and clear for those willing to look, and it shows that the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race.